On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> You're >> essentially leveraging a commit bit that you haven't used in more than >> three years to try to push a patch that was submitted months too late > > > I'm not leveraging anything any I'm not going to push something unless > people are on board. That's *why* I sent that message. And I started > the email by saying I was going to go work on patches from the > commitfest first.
Exactly. I was of the opinion, as some familiar with the subject matter, that this rose to the level of deserving special consideration. I'm glad that there does seem to be a general recognition that such a category exists. Given the reservations of Robert and others, this isn't going to happen for 9.4. It was never going to happen under a cloud of controversy. I only broached the idea. Special consideration is not something I ask for lightly. I must admit that it's hard to see things as I do if you aren't as familiar with the problem. I happen to think that this is the wrong decision, but I'll leave it at that. I'm sure that whatever we come up with for 9.5 will be a lot better than what I have here, because it will probably be generalized to other important cases. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
